Brickipedia:Forum/Move/Ages
What are we going to do with users under the age of 13? * IMO, (unless we are legally not allowed to let them create an account, let them stay) -13 users can make perfectly valid contributions. *Make them agree to conditions when signing up, stating that they are 13+. If they send us government ID showing otherwise then we'll ban them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:28, February 7, 2013 (UTC) *I agree with NXT. The only people we'd be stopping by only allowing users over 13 years old are those who would make good contributions. Most of the immature users would just lie about their age and join anyways. We can't forget about COPPA, though, so we'll have to make sure that users under 13 have parental permission. I'm not entirely sure how we'd do that, though. Drewlzoo * Put it in the term and conditions that under 13s must have parental permission (and if necessary that the email they provide is that of their parents) --'Brick bobby' talk it's a trap! 18:02, February 7, 2013 (UTC) * Give them a trial period of a month. If they make good edits and act mature, I think they should be allowed to stay. Maybe appoint Supervisors to perform this task? **If we're going to do that, we might as well do it for all users, no matter what their age. Obviously, just because someone is over 13 doesn't mean that they're mature. (I will admit that was a good idea, though. :P) Drewlzoo * I don't want to seem like a forum troll, but, if users will be signing up from the US (although it's not a US based website), it is US law that reuires services that request information or are at risk of letting children under 13 to give personal information and are available to individuals under 13 in the US are required to at least state that they must be 13 years of age or older to sign up for the service. Yes, there is no way of knowing their age, but tell that to the lawmakers in Washington. Recently, websites, apps, etc. are being fined by the FTC (in the six-figures sometimes) for not abiding by this law. I'm not saying Brickipedia will be fined.... just stating the facts... 16:34, February 8, 2013 (UTC) **The location thing always confuses me. Wikia is based in the US, so it would apply to them. Right? However, the new wiki will be based were? Will it be in Canada since Ajr is the one doing all the financial things, or will it be in the UK for some unknown reason? OR would it be wherever the server is...? :S Sorry for the confusion. Drewlzoo *Sounds like we need to work on something to do with parent permissions. * I've always thought Australia had a different rule for this - and Canada - as long as we aren't a US domain, it should be fine. -- 23:32, February 8, 2013 (UTC) *Just put in a point in the terms and conditions along the line of: The user accepts that they are above 13 or they have got parents/Guardians permission and the email they signed up with is that of their parent/Guardian. --'Brick bobby' talk it's a trap! 11:35, February 9, 2013 (UTC) *I'll just sum it up, I think most users have had experiences with underage users or users at 13 years of age, and let's face it we've just about found out about most if not all underage users in the past whether it be by maturity and attitude etc. Even users to have claimed they're age 13 can sometimes be a little less inmature as well and need to learn the rules (no offense to users who are age 13). I'm OK with the idea of a small trial period, but I honestly don't think it will work unless possibly we make some restrictions on the users under 13 such as: ** Restriction to nominate or accept nomination as Patroller, Chatmoderator or Administrator until the age of 13 or over. ** Restriction on nomination for article class nominations until 13 or over. ** Online Chat may be an issue. ** Certain votes and polls may need to be restricted; mostly those that critically affect the wiki such as this forum. ** Warnings to be reduced. ** Tutorials. Just in conclusion these are just my ideas and don't expect you to agree with them. Just to consider my ideas. - 09:11, February 11, 2013 (UTC) *Half the users here are probably younger. I am not making accusations. Will all users have to give a government ID in order to edit? *:No. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:24, February 12, 2013 (UTC) ---- Big idea here: Regardless of what we want, we can't legally allow under 13s to create accounts. If they don't tell us their age, there is nothing we can do. We should have something in the welcome template stating "do not tell us your age". Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:25, February 12, 2013 (UTC) :Although, can we legally allow under 13s to edit without an account? Because that reveals their IP address, and they could still post their email address or physical address or phone number or whatever on chat, anyway; if they want to. We can't really stop them posting public information, so shouldn't we take the route that reveals the least information? Or does COPPA only refer to the organization that is collecting the information? 01:32, February 12, 2013 (UTC) ::Anon is fine, just accounts which aren't allowed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:33, February 12, 2013 (UTC) * I joined underaged. I became a patroller underaged. I became a rollback underaged. I put in my first nomination to become an Admin underaged, although I am now 13+. If an underaged user is mature enough, and if they have parental permission , I don't see any problem in it apart from there being a law against it –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 02:00, February 21, 2013 (UTC) ** Aggreed. *** The way that I got around the -13 rule, was that I made my account under my Dad's name. So it was his account, which I was using. That complies with the rule. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 19:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)